Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178702 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109880 Nov 29, 2012
Dodger, if a new gravity well forms, if a new stars gravity is forming, must it be fed by a stars matter?
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109881 Nov 29, 2012
Dodger, you claim to know everything and yet you've never brought even one new thought all your own to this board or science, why is that?
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109883 Nov 29, 2012
Tell us dodger, what makes a great thinker?
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109884 Nov 29, 2012
Can any of you others in the clique answer these questions? You are all so eager to jump on anyone that disagrees with you.

Gosh , you all must be as smart as dodger and chimney, so why don't all of you give your own answers , you know, the same way all of you pile on anyone, while one of you is speaking and losing?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109885 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You got only part of it. We were talking about mutations, and I said no genetic mutation has been observed to result in any new, or nascent tissue, organ or limb. Perhaps I did not word that in the best of terms but what I meant was the beginning of the transformation of a new tissue, organ or limb. I never implied that I was expecting that to instantly pop into existence. I am saying, given your theory of slow gradual, incremental change, show me a case where we have some significant new emerging function or body type. This is also what we would expect to find in the fossil record. Not just isolated fossils of distinct organismal features, but rather, a set of at least 3 or beginning, intermediate, ending of...well,...anything predicted by the theory. So far this just does not exist and I doubt that it ever will.(From where I stand it is impossible!)
Good, specifics at last.

So you will agree that the sequence of gradual changes of the reptilian jaw bones witj slow, gradual, incremental change towards becoming part of the middle ear is exactly what you are looking for. Its exactly what we were looking for too, and we found it.

In the same creatures, other features of the skull and dentition were ALSO moving gradually from a typical reptilian configuration to a typical mammalian one. IN addition, their leg placement was moving from "out the sides" primitive reptile style, and harking back to the original lobe finned fish placement of these extremities, to "underneath", more efficient for motion over ground.

All the big changes recorded slowly and gradually in the fossil record, us like you demanded.

That is a "transitional" or intermediate form. So you would also have to agree these have been found (although strictly, ANY form that gave rise to later different forms is "transitional". Its not inherent in the species itself, as they are all "complete", its a question of whether they were a dead end or later forms were derived from them).

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109887 Nov 29, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell us of frame dragging, since you want to ignore the rest of the article puffer dude.
No need.

The article, just the part you posted, already talked about frame dragging and gravity as two distinct effects. Therefore it was, logically, in no way saying that spin was an essential component of gravity.

No need for me to go running on your little wild goose chases just because you fail to understand basic English and logic. The whole gravity spin things is not only idiotic, as we would expect form you always, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109888 Nov 29, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No need.
The article, just the part you posted, already talked about frame dragging and gravity as two distinct effects. Therefore it was, logically, in no way saying that spin was an essential component of gravity.
No need for me to go running on your little wild goose chases just because you fail to understand basic English and logic. The whole gravity spin things is not only idiotic, as we would expect form you always, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Gosh, then you mean those scientists were stupid for using the word spin? Why did they use the word spin in their work, do enlighten us chimney and tell us what spin was used in conjunction with.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109889 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it's impossible because macroevolution never happened. Think about how little I am asking for. Just a set of three: The initial (separated by time), then the transitional (separated by time), then the final. That's it. Notice I haven't even specified the amount of time in between. With the supposed millions of species of plants and animals out there, and the millions of years of evolution and fossil formation, the theory predicted that we should easily see this evidence in the fossil record as Darwin stated, but it never happened because macroevolution never happened.
1. Reptile - 7 jaw bones.
2. Synapsids
2. Therapsid mammal-like reptiles such as Morganucodon, where the same bones are squeezed to the back and performing JAW and EAR functions simultaneously!
3. True Mammal, where the same bones are now 3+3 in the ear and 1 remaining in the jaw.

Transformations showing in the fossil record:

7 boned jaw changing in stages to 1 jaw and 3+3 to middle ear
Dentition becoming more complex and differentiated

Timescale transitions are found in: 250 -> 180 million years ago.

No creature remotely like a therapsid or a mammal is ever found in Carboniferous, Cambrian, or Pre-Cambrian rock. The earliest they appear is the late Permian.

Really, you cannot demand your cake and not eat it Urb!
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109890 Nov 29, 2012
What's wrong chimney, you can't answer any of the other questions?
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109891 Nov 29, 2012
This might give y'all a taste of what y'all do to everyone that isn't just like you, only one person does it to all of you, instead of you all against one.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109892 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The appendix was once wrongly thought vestigial by the Darwinists. But now we know it provides good bacteria to help digest our food.
Which is why it did not disappear entirely, like the external tail. Its still a bit useful, but merely a vestige of what it was in our ancestors.(vestigial, get it?)

The tail on the other hand is long gone and the only time it reappears in freak cases - some with cartilaginous vertebrae and working musculature - it reminds us about another evolutionary note, the atavism. HUMANS never get "atavistic feathers" because nothing with feathers was ever on out evolutionary line. But they DO get atavistic tails, because tails were. Likewise some whales have atavistic hind limbs, some horses have atavistic extra toes.

It all points to evolution, and evolution explains it easily. Ex nihilo creation does not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109893 Nov 29, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, then you mean those scientists were stupid for using the word spin? Why did they use the word spin in their work, do enlighten us chimney and tell us what spin was used in conjunction with.
No, the scientists were not stupid. At first, actually, I would not have called you stupid either, it was just a hypothesis you presented. But it was refuted by the fact that we know Newton and Einstein described gravity perfectly well using mass and distance, not spin, and this was explained to you.

But your desperate attempts to twist every quote you can find in favour of your discredited hypothesis, and refusal to understand WHY spin is not a necessary component of gravity - now THAT is STUPID!

The point is, the SMART thing to do when an idea does not stack up is to let it go, Jimbo. Might even clear your thinking to let a new idea in, and one of these days, one of them might be a good one.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#109894 Nov 29, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, specifics at last.
So you will agree that the sequence of gradual changes of the reptilian jaw bones witj slow, gradual, incremental change towards becoming part of the middle ear is exactly what you are looking for. Its exactly what we were looking for too, and we found it.
In the same creatures, other features of the skull and dentition were ALSO moving gradually from a typical reptilian configuration to a typical mammalian one. IN addition, their leg placement was moving from "out the sides" primitive reptile style, and harking back to the original lobe finned fish placement of these extremities, to "underneath", more efficient for motion over ground.
All the big changes recorded slowly and gradually in the fossil record, us like you demanded.
That is a "transitional" or intermediate form. So you would also have to agree these have been found (although strictly, ANY form that gave rise to later different forms is "transitional". Its not inherent in the species itself, as they are all "complete", its a question of whether they were a dead end or later forms were derived from them).
OK, so your claim is that the initial is a reptile's jaw bone and the final is the Mammal middle ear bone. What is the transitional again? What is your evidence of this? How could the reptile/mammal transitional eat if it lost it's jaw bone on the way to becoming a mammal middle ear bone? How could the transitional reptile-mammal ear or eat if it doesn't have either? What is the name of this reptile-mammal hybrid who is in the middle of losing a jaw bone and gaining a middle ear bone? How could something that was functioning as a jaw bone transition into a complex hearing mechanism which is dependent on hundreds of supporting hearing, nerve, muscle, supportive secretions, pressure systems, etc.? Show me.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109895 Nov 29, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The answer is a spinning planets gravity.

I think a better answer would be that any spinning object with mass warps space-time, in a non-linear way, in 4 dimensions.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109896 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it's impossible because macroevolution never happened. Think about how little I am asking for. Just a set of three: The initial (separated by time), then the transitional (separated by time), then the final. That's it. Notice I haven't even specified the amount of time in between. With the supposed millions of species of plants and animals out there, and the millions of years of evolution and fossil formation, the theory predicted that we should easily see this evidence in the fossil record as Darwin stated, but it never happened because macroevolution never happened.
Now that you have digested the 3-boned middle ear, shall we delve into the appearance of feathers on Avian dinosaurs, and the gradual transition of some of these to flight?

Or the emergence of a line of increasingly aquatic mammals that led to whales?

Perhaps even the splendid sequence of early to late hominids with growing brains, shrinking jaws and teeth, etc, illustrating the transition from ape to man that Darwin and his contemporaries could only PREDICT based on the PRINCIPLES of evolution, but we now have solid EVIDENCE for, confirming the prediction. You going to do the usual and choose the most fragmentary of these finds to try to discredit all of them?

I expect so.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109897 Nov 29, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Science is adding spin into gravity and its lexicon slowly. There ain't no stoppin it now.

Um,.... no.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109898 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Wrong! This is an example of a (monsterous!) deleterious mutation.

It usually is, yes. But it is this sort of mutation that lead to multi-legged creatures (arachnids for example).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again! The appendix was once wrongly thought vestigial by the Darwinists. But now we know it provides good bacteria to help digest our food.

No, you better read up on the subject. The appendix was part of the digestive system (to digest grasses) but it has lost that role as human diet has changed. The appendix is no longer functional for that purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_append...

Second, the appendix does not PROVIDE good bacteria. It more acts as a safe harbor for bacteria when illness (or antibiotics) flush out or kill off those important bacteria.

As a side note:
The appendix is "experimentally verified as being rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_append...

Another side note: the appendix is functional in cattle and other grass eaters.

Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109899 Nov 29, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the scientists were not stupid. At first, actually, I would not have called you stupid either, it was just a hypothesis you presented. But it was refuted by the fact that we know Newton and Einstein described gravity perfectly well using mass and distance, not spin, and this was explained to you.
But your desperate attempts to twist every quote you can find in favour of your discredited hypothesis, and refusal to understand WHY spin is not a necessary component of gravity - now THAT is STUPID!
The point is, the SMART thing to do when an idea does not stack up is to let it go, Jimbo. Might even clear your thinking to let a new idea in, and one of these days, one of them might be a good one.
Lol, we're gonna have to call you and dodger, the dodger twins. You refuse to answer the questions posed to all of you and you refuse to answer straight forward questions.

Why did the scientists use the word, spin and what did they use the word spin, in conjunction with?
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109900 Nov 29, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I think a better answer would be that any spinning object with mass warps space-time, in a non-linear way, in 4 dimensions.
Ooohh, so now its any spinning object. Funny, those scientists never before mentioned spinning, in conjunction with warping space and time, until now.

The 4th dimension---wooooo---show proof.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109901 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it's impossible because macroevolution never happened. Think about how little I am asking for. Just a set of three: The initial (separated by time), then the transitional (separated by time), then the final. That's it. Notice I haven't even specified the amount of time in between. With the supposed millions of species of plants and animals out there, and the millions of years of evolution and fossil formation, the theory predicted that we should easily see this evidence in the fossil record as Darwin stated, but it never happened because macroevolution never happened.

Hysterical. "Microevolution never happened"! That is a great argument especially when EVERYTHING I said can be easily checked. On the other hand you have just presented nothing.

Who has the burden of proof according to the scientific method?

What do you disagree with below and what would suffice as proof (not that is my obligation, but I am willing to help)?

My Points
1. Soft tissue rarely fossilizes. Bones have a much better chance (only one in a billion against, odds!)

2. We only recently have been finding fossils of precambrian life (all soft tissue)

3. Trilobites have precursors (your word) in the PreCambrian.

4. Fish have precursors as far back as the Cambrian (I have not checked further than that).

So did satan plant this evidence?

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, what you are asking in nearly impossible. It is hard enough for bone to be fossilized (literally one in a billion) but for soft tissue it is nearly impossible. Remember, at one time we could not find any pre-cambrian life. All soft tissue. Now we have found enough to know the earth was just as teaming with life as it was in the Cambrian.
We DO have precursors to trilobites in the pre-cambrian. We have the early proto-fish (precursor) back in the Cambrian. The same for the rest. We still have a lot to find and learn, but you don't seem to be aware of what science does already know and have evidence of.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min DanFromSmithville 174,042
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Eagle 12 20,901
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr ChromiuMan 143,949
News Intelligent design 8 hr MikeF 24
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Wed macumazahn 1,248
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Wed karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Wed dollarsbill 14
More from around the web